Bloomberg crowd attacking Wyoming

Bloomberg and his cronies are now attacking the remaining free states! :fire:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/gun-control-advocates-take-aim-at-wyoming-laws/article_655ba74f-be80-5fab-adef-c5faf1b84040.html

Originally Posted by Larry Ashcraft:
Enough of the "My state is better than your state". If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

Let me repeat that:

If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere!
Larry said it.

I know Bloomberg will have a tougher fight in Wyoming than in Colorado, but it's no surprise that he's headed there.
“State lawmakers need to propose legislation to change Wyoming law,” said Lindsay Nicholas, an attorney with the Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.
Or... they can do nothing of the sort and Ms. Nicholas and Maybor Bloomberg can keep their noses out of the state of Wyoming.
Wyoming privacy laws prevent more names from flowing into national background check system.
Case closed. Move along. Nothing to see here.

PabloJ

March 18, 2013, 04:14 PM

They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

X-Rap

March 18, 2013, 04:18 PM

Take the bigger cities, the Jackson Hole/Yellowstone area and a lot of Union Miners and Wyoming isn't as bullet proof as it may seem. If there would be as low a turnout as some places in Colorado had I think many so called western gun states could be in a world of hurt.

blueskyjaunte

March 18, 2013, 04:32 PM

PabloJ, who gets to define the "mental problems" that disqualify gun ownership?

CoRoMo

March 18, 2013, 04:34 PM

PabloJ, who gets to define the "mental problems" that disqualify gun ownership?
I suggest the people of Wyoming decide what's best for the people of Wyoming.

ASCTLC

March 18, 2013, 04:36 PM

Take the bigger cities, the Jackson Hole/Yellowstone area and a lot of Union Miners and Wyoming isn't as bullet proof as it may seem. If there would be as low a turnout as some places in Colorado had I think many so called western gun states could be in a world of hurt.
Don't be so quick to believe the media's version of support X-rap, they're railroading us and you're buying in to what they're selling as I suspect way too many are. Read below the accounts of just two of our great sheriffs.

Andy

From our Larimer County, Co Sheriff Smith communicating what he experienced back on March 4th. You can google this and find it on his face book page.

It’s after 11 p.m. and I’ve finally gotten back home. Let me share some reflections from the marathon session at the state capital today.

First, I have to say how proud I am of all the citizens, many from my county, who showed up to be heard today. If you weren’t there, but read the news accounts, you were a victim of unbelievable deception. The media accounts paint a picture of essentially equal... numbers of supporters for both sides. I was there- that was not the case. I’d estimate the opponents to be at least 6-8 times the number of supporters. Don’t be fooled!

I have never been more proud to be a Colorado Sheriff than I was today. Despite tremendous geographic and budgetary challenges, we had 25-30 Sheriffs or their representatives at the capital today. We were given very few opportunities to testify, but every time we did, 20-25 Sheriffs stood together in support. To the irritation of bill sponsors and the majority party, we received several rounds of applause throughout the day. We were truly honored to represent the constituents of our counties. Only one newscast mentioned our presence today, but then they quickly “balanced” it with a mention that the police chiefs supported the bills. (I counted 1 appointed police chief and the appointed director of CBI at the capital throughout the whole day)

In the end, the majority party chose time and time again to ignore our advice and input, just as they did everyone who spoke in opposition to these bad and dangerous bills.

Rest assured, your County Sheriffs are NOT giving up the fight to protect their citizens and the rights of those citizens. We understand our duty and we take our oaths seriously!

Good night
Sheriff Smith

And from our El Paso County, Colorado Sheriff Terry Maketa. You can google "Sheriff Maketa: "An Injustice Against Our Citizens""
The El Paso County Sheriff's Office released the following statement given by Sheriff Maketa about his testimony at the Colorado State Capitol on Monday, March 4.

"Monday, March 4, 2013, was unlike any day I’ve experienced in my 12 years testifying at the Colorado State Capitol. During my tenure, I’ve had numerous opportunities to participate in legislative processes from draft proposal to signature of a bill making it law.

I’ve witnessed many hearings and observed citizens, law enforcement, and special interest groups share opinions on a variety of proposed laws. I’ve witnessed very controversial bills set in a process to allow full access from supporters, opponents, and citizens to be heard by their legislators. On numerous occasions, bills similar in nature were set for hearing on different days to ensure opportunity for anyone to participate in the deliberative process. On Monday, this didn’t occur. Instead, gun bills were simultaneously scheduled and of 25 plus sheriffs, only one could testify per bill. Hearings were split so bills heard simultaneously were on different floors, even though all were heard by senate committees. Rules for testimony changed three times from Thursday afternoon through Monday at 10:30 am, when hearings began.

Historically, any citizen would be allowed to speak if they arrived at the Capitol early and signed up on testimony records. Although sign up sheets were in place and citizens including myself signed up, we were completely disregarded. Minutes after I signed up to testify, I learned a different process would be utilized and testimony was based on three categories: experts, preferred witnesses, and public witnesses. No explanation was provided to define expert or preferred witness. I was told this decision was made by the senate president and the chairperson of the hearing committee. Additionally, experts would have no time constraints and all others would be restricted to three minutes. I was completely disheartened at what I was witnessing and this was exacerbated when I learned experts included an individual that was not a resident of Colorado who had no credentials to qualify as an expert except his spouse was a victim of the Tuscan Arizona shooting. He admitted he had not read the proposed bill and could not speak to any specifics regarding this bill. He encouraged Colorado to adopt universal background checks and close the gun show loophole, both of which already exist. Sadly, he testified with unlimited restriction as voters and taxpayers of this state sat helplessly as they were denied the right to testify during committee hearings.

My colleague, Sheriff John Cooke, testified in opposition of the “Universal Background Check” bill on behalf of most sheriffs while staying within the three minute constraint. Fortunately, I was allowed to testify because a member of the legislature listed me as an expert witness. I was honored and brought statistics and facts as it related to the national insta-check system (NICS); the probable criminalization of law abiding citizens and the unenforceability of this particular bill. I offered other options knowing we all share the common goal of reducing violence. I was proud to represent my constituents and the majority of our sheriffs. That pride was quickly diminished as I departed the hearing room and witnessed hundreds of citizens who would not be given the opportunity to testify. Although they expressed their sincere appreciation for my comments, I recognized the injustice that was unfolding before my eyes. Citizens of Colorado were prevented from participating in the legislative process. Their rights had been overridden by the agenda of a few members of the State Senate.

As I made my way out of the Capitol, I was shocked at the number of people who attended these hearings. It’s estimated the number of people in attendance reached 1,000. I spoke to several and was told they just wanted their voice to be heard. Many of them had never been to the Capitol, let alone testified on any bill. Some brought their children as a lesson in civics and sacrificed a day at work to participate in the law making process. Unfortunately, what they hoped for never happened.

Due to a prior commitment, I could not stay for the remaining bills. Later, I phoned a member of our legislature and expressed concern for what I had witnessed; changing of rules, time limits, new classification of speakers to establish priority and most of all the number of citizens who made the journey to the Capitol in hopes of being heard. I was told the rules did change several times and that this was very unusual. These changes were driven by the majority leadership, Senator John Morse, and the chairperson of the involved hearing committee.

I am not sharing this because of the outcome of the hearings that day; rather I am sharing this because of the process implemented and the faces of all those citizens that were never permitted to participate in the process. Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people and on this day, they were crushed and kicked to the side. Special interest coalitions and hand picked experts with no relevant expertise trumped our citizens.

Iggy

March 18, 2013, 04:42 PM

Bloomy should stay there in NYC and poleece them big sody cup bandits and leave us alone.

We've been doing just fine without his babysittin' ways.

I hope the citizens of CO stand up come election time and take their State back from the influx of people from the two coasts. Wyoming is undergoing the same type of invasion and it will no doubt get worse as things progress.

Here's hoping that CO and WY can serve as a anchor for keeping this country free..

X-Rap

March 18, 2013, 04:54 PM

I have watched the transformation over the last 30-40 yrs that I have paid attention. The population centers, labor, academia all have played a part in the coloring of our nation and no state is immune to it. No matter how much we rural minded folks would like to think that we are safe in our red colored districts it is as in the case of all bad laws that I have seen passed in my home state of Colorado these same culprits who have brought on the destruction of my liberties.
I am not giving up but I am neither nieve in my belief that there is a tide rising in even the most free and rural states that must be recognized before it can be defeted.

wally

March 18, 2013, 05:02 PM

PabloJ, who gets to define the "mental problems" that disqualify gun ownership?

Bingo! This is the real issue and sticking point!

ThorinNNY

March 18, 2013, 08:11 PM

Aw,c`mon guys,stop beatin up on Bloomindjit!. He`s just a poor, mis-guided soul spendin his loot the best he can. All we need to do is get him to re-direct his energies to a more appropriate venue.Several come to mind : Mars,Hades, Hell :evil: or maybe Bezerkistan :cuss:

berettaprofessor

March 18, 2013, 09:18 PM

Bloomberg is starting more and more to remind me of Hitler.

85win

March 18, 2013, 09:30 PM

Just a comment about the article:

WOW.

Sorry, but being court ordered to attend outpatient mental health therapy does not disqualify you for buying a gun. Being court ordered to outpatient mental health treatment does not by itself mean you are "mentally defective" and it does not mean you have been "committed to a mental institution."

I am not trying to defend the criminal who did the VT shooting, I am just pointing out this is contrary to the ATF definition and requirement on the 4473.

Where they are getting this is beyond me.

jcwit

March 18, 2013, 09:54 PM

....

Rom828

March 18, 2013, 10:29 PM

Bloomberg should focus on the NYC schools, 80% of HS grads there are unable to read or do simple math. Oh wait, if he does that nobody will vote for him.

Tom from WNY

March 18, 2013, 10:32 PM

You have been warned! What happened in New York State can happen anywhere! Be vigilant always!

Do not take your rights for granted.

Steel Horse Rider

March 18, 2013, 10:43 PM

Bloomberg is the one with mental problems as it is self-evident that he has a Messiah complex. He is just putting the leftist plan into play on a national scale that was used to corrupt Colorado. All it took was 4 billionaire trustifarians to buy off the simple minded and lazy citizens in Colorado. Hopefully they will need to apply for a refund in 2014 now that the dupes have been shown the true nature of leftism.

k_dawg

March 18, 2013, 10:43 PM

First you occupy friendly territories; the Rhineland, Sarr and Austria [New York].

When you succeed with no real cost, you then start looking farther, say Sarr [Connecticut].

Then you get bolder, and look at a 'neutral' Memel [Colorado]

As you learn you can storm over the rights of free societies, you now set your sight on actual military conquests, Czechoslovakia [Wyoming].

Which state will be Poland?

And who will eventually stand up, USA [ Texas etc ].

History repeats. It always does.

HorseSoldier

March 18, 2013, 11:12 PM

Sorry, but being court ordered to attend outpatient mental health therapy does not disqualify you for buying a gun. Being court ordered to outpatient mental health treatment does not by itself mean you are "mentally defective" and it does not mean you have been "committed to a mental institution."

Cho was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under a Temporary Detention Order issued by a magistrate, and involuntarily transported to an inpatient facility by police after that determination. A subsequent hearing by a special justice appointed by the Circuit Court found that he should be subject to involuntary outpatient care, rather than involuntary inpatient care. This decision probably reflects general policies relating to scarcity of beds for inpatient care, rather than an objective assessment of Cho's state of mind (given the amount of consideration and testimony involved in the hearing).

So, in this case, you have two separate court officials both finding that Cho needed to be compelled by the court to receive mental health treatment. I'd personally take this as two incidents where he was adjudicated mentally defective and no longer eligible on a 4473, not as proof that he should not have been a prohibited person anyway.

Thompson9494

March 18, 2013, 11:18 PM

That awkward moment when you realize Wyoming only had 11 gun related homicides in 2011 versus New York's 445 despite the enormous discrepancies in gun laws.

351 WINCHESTER

March 18, 2013, 11:21 PM

Bloomberg and his liberals need to stay the heck in nyc and leave the rest of us alone!

HorseSoldier

March 18, 2013, 11:26 PM

To make that happen, we need something to put Bloomberg on the defensive. The ballot initiatives and recall efforts in Colorado are excellent in that respect, especially if Coloradans can figuratively decapitate politicians that Bloomberg has pumped money into. Something more needs to be done, however, given the enormous resources that twit brings to the fight.

NY'er

March 18, 2013, 11:30 PM

I hate to say it because I understand the Sherriffs' sentiment, but I see their absolute INaction in enforcing those citizens' Civil Right to be heard to be an Epic failure as the highest law enforcement officer for the people in their jurisdiction. And they allowed it to happen despite knowing it was wrong. Same as we here in NY blame Dean Skelos for allllowwwing it to happen to us. And I expect he is serving his last elected term because of it.

We're losing this battle people. I read an article earlier today that included a quote from Tom Gresham from Gun Talk about his interaction with the Wounded Warrior Project (the purpose of which, btw I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support) but what he said rang true~

There is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world? Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers, and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won’t do business with the firearms industry. Each of these is a very public way of saying, “We don’t do business with ‘those people.’” Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography. . . .

We need to nip this demonization in the bud~ and pronto.

walking arsenal

March 18, 2013, 11:30 PM

They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

Define mental problem. Is it wanting to beat your wife? Is it wanting to go to church? Is it wanting to set fire to your dog? Is it wanting to own a gun? Is it wanting to shoot up the school? Or, wanting to school your kids at home?

Because if you let THEM write the definition of what a mental problem is that should bar you from owning guns let me tell you they will define it anyway they want and we will all be in the loony bin.

85win

March 18, 2013, 11:31 PM

Thanks Horsesoldier, I was not aware of all that. I definitely take back what I said then.

Nickel Plated

March 18, 2013, 11:32 PM

First you occupy friendly territories; the Rhineland, Sarr and Austria [New York].

When you succeed with no real cost, you then start looking farther, say Sarr [Connecticut].

Then you get bolder, and look at a 'neutral' Memel [Colorado]

As you learn you can storm over the rights of free societies, you now set your sight on actual military conquests, Czechoslovakia [Wyoming].

Which state will be Poland?

And who will eventually stand up, USA [ Texas etc ].

History repeats. It always does.

Just waiting for them to finally get too bold and run into the brick wall of the Soviet Union (which state would that be I wonder?) that just pummels them into oblivion and finally shuts them the hell up once and for all.

Iggy

March 18, 2013, 11:37 PM

They're liable to git dinged a little in Wyoming..:evil:

Highest concentration of guns per person in the U.S.:cool:

cleardiddion

March 19, 2013, 12:15 AM

I suggest the people of Wyoming decide what's best for the people of Wyoming.

And, trying to get guns outlawed in Wyoming is like trying to get antelope declared an endangered species.

Ankeny

March 19, 2013, 12:17 AM

I suggest the people of Wyoming decide what's best for the people of Wyoming. That's pretty much how we roll out here. I think Iggy and other Wyomingite forum members would all agree that Bloomberg and his cronies will be met with nothing but contempt outside of a few isolated pockets of like thinkers. Even many of the ultra liberal folks have moved here to hunt, fish, and shoot stuff. Not taking any thing for granted, just stating the way it is...

Black Butte

March 19, 2013, 12:33 AM

Bloomberg knows what's best for Wyoming.

Tim the student

March 19, 2013, 12:42 AM

They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

Serious question: How much do you know about mental illness, or the DSM?

Next question: Who do you think should decide what mental problems should be "on the list"?

HorseSoldier

March 19, 2013, 01:57 AM

There shouldn't be a criteria of "which diagnosis" that makes the list, but whether or not the person, for whatever reason or diagnosis, poses a danger to themselves and others.

There should also be an appeal process of some sort in place so that we don't have issues of, say, someone in their teens or 20s having a major depressive episode and suicidal ideation translate into a 40 something year old healthy adult who went through a rough time a couple decades ago but is now well adjusted but still considered prohibited.

PabloJ

March 19, 2013, 02:32 AM

That awkward moment when you realize Wyoming only had 11 gun related homicides in 2011 versus New York's 445 despite the enormous discrepancies in gun laws.
Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.

gego

March 19, 2013, 03:05 AM

Really. So if someone has mental problems, he or she doesn't have rights? You assume that because some of the 11,000 homicide deaths each year are caused by people with mental illness, all mentally ill people are dangerous. But is that true? The same could be said for people who drink alcohol. Some of them get violent and are more likely to commit a gun homicide, so by your logic anyone know to drink should be denied his 2nd amendment rights. Some drugs just make some people more violent and alcohol is one.

What other right is denied before someone commits a crime? We don't require a background check and deny printing presses to those mentally ill, or take away a mentally ill persons right to freely exercise his religion. You need to first commit an act of aggression that is defined as a crime or demonstrate yourself to be a danger before your rights can be restricted through due process. How is taking your 2nd amendment right away due process if you have committed no crime and haven't been determined in court to be a danger to yourself or others because of your behavior.

TexasBill

March 19, 2013, 03:13 AM

Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.

WE'RE SORRY: YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT!

According to the most recent state-by-state FBI figures I have (2010), the population of New York State is 34.26 times larger than that of Wyoming. In that year, New York State had 446 firearms homicides; Wyoming had 11. Adjusting for the difference in populations, Wyoming's figure would rise to about 378, 16% lower than New York's. New York's handgun homicides totaled 394. Wyoming's came to 7. With the same adjustment, Wyoming's number would rise to about 240, nearly 40% lower than the Empire State's.

The leveling factor is normally x number of incidents per 100,000 people. By this measure, New York State had a higher handgun homicide rate than not only Wyoming, but 29 other states, as well.

HorseSoldier

March 19, 2013, 03:24 AM

Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.

NYC has about 8.3 million inhabitants, WY has about 576K, or NYC has 14 times as many residents as WY. It has 40 times as many murders.

Really. So if someone has mental problems, he or she doesn't have rights?

Assuming this response was aimed at my reply up thread, I would say this:

If someone has mental health issues of such severity that they are having police contact and being referred into the court system because of them, then they should be evaluated to determine if their rights should be limited because their particular issues do or do not pose a risk to themselves or others.

It's a pretty big straw man to get from that line of thinking to claiming mental problems = suspension of rights.

The same could be said for people who drink alcohol. Some of them get violent and are more likely to commit a gun homicide, so by your logic anyone know to drink should be denied his 2nd amendment rights.

In many jurisdictions, it is a crime to be intoxicated in possession of a firearm, or to carry a firearm in places which serve alcoholic beverages, or similar.

What other right is denied before someone commits a crime?

Drivers licenses are revoked or suspended with pretty boring regularity when persons demonstrate that their driving poses a risk to themselves or others based on patterns of behavior and minor infractions.

You need to first commit an act of aggression that is defined as a crime or demonstrate yourself to be a danger before your rights can be restricted through due process.

Adjudicated mentally defective = due process.

The previously referenced Cho, for instance, had a lawyer present and representing him at the competency hearing that determined he was subject to court ordered outpatient treatment.

How is taking your 2nd amendment right away due process if you have committed no crime and haven't been determined in court to be a danger to yourself or others because of your behavior.

See above. A magistrate and a special justice, in two separate hearings, both determined that based on the totality of the circumstances in front of them that Cho should be involuntarily subject to mental health treatment.

Bill4282

March 19, 2013, 04:22 AM

Bloomberg and his cronies are using the same tactic that many have before "divide and conquer " they are going after one state at a time. Due to small populations and proximity to California, western states will be the first targets and creep eastwardly.

Hacker15E

March 19, 2013, 08:48 AM

Bloomberg has all ready stated that after he stops being Mayor of NYC, he is going to spend his fortune on his pet projects...

...this means years and years more of him trying to influence the gun control debate all over the country with LOTS of money.

PabloJ

March 19, 2013, 08:56 AM

WE'RE SORRY: YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT!

According to the most recent state-by-state FBI figures I have (2010), the population of New York State is 34.26 times larger than that of Wyoming. In that year, New York State had 446 firearms homicides; Wyoming had 11. Adjusting for the difference in populations, Wyoming's figure would rise to about 378, 16% lower than New York's. New York's handgun homicides totaled 394. Wyoming's came to 7. With the same adjustment, Wyoming's number would rise to about 240, nearly 40% lower than the Empire State's.

The leveling factor is normally x number of incidents per 100,000 people. By this measure, New York State had a higher handgun homicide rate than not only Wyoming, but 29 other states, as well.
You forgot to include "undocumented beings" many of whom reside in places like NYC. The numbers would be very similar if you were able to use actual figures to do the math.

PabloJ

March 19, 2013, 08:59 AM

Bloomberg knows what's best for Wyoming.
Mikey knows what's best for Americans. There will be no gun violence and healthier population too. I can hardly wait!

Derek Zeanah

March 19, 2013, 09:03 AM

I'm just going to throw this out there so y'all have something else to think about.

Let's pretend you have a daughter, and the worst happens: she gets raped.

Odds are she's going to get some level of PTSD from that, just like combat vets do, and abused children, and abused dogs for that matter. If she's smart she'll get counseling and will come through it OK.

Now, do you want her to be able to get a CCW, train with it, and make herself a much harder target for the predators of modern society? Of course you do.

But if you make a diagnosis of PTSD something that prohibits gun ownership, then she never will.. Nor will a 3 year old pulled out of an abusive home, placed with a loving family and given appropriate counseling, when he comes of age. Because, you know, he had PTSD when he was a pre-schooler even though he made it out of childhood unbroken. Should he be forever denied the use of arms to defend his family?

Mental health issues are harder than many seem to think from an "is this a good thing" perspective. It's worse when you look at the services that are available (or completely unavailable) in society and start talking about big changes and greater responsibilities placed on organizations that are seriously underfunded as it is.

alsaqr

March 19, 2013, 09:12 AM

Bloomberg and his anti-self defense hacks will get run out of WY. Folks in WY enjoy their freedom.

longknife12

March 19, 2013, 09:20 AM

Wyoming, get on top of this NOW! I never believed it could happen here or this fast!
Dan
:eek:

mcdonl

March 19, 2013, 09:29 AM

Truth.
And, trying to get guns outlawed in Wyoming is like trying to get antelope declared an endangered species.

Ever heard of the well funded terrorist group HSUS? They are trying to get coyotes (by way of) hybrid wolfs on the protected list.

You have no idea the power people have over the uneducated when fear is their weapon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bikerdoc

March 19, 2013, 09:34 AM

Bloomberg and his money can be marginalized with focused, coordinated, action by united gun owners.

rdhood

March 19, 2013, 10:03 AM

They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

When I read that, I read someone with absolutely no understanding of mathematics and the human condition.

"Mental Problems" in a population is normally going to have a bell curve type of distribution. EVERYONE has mental problems... the only question is to their nature and intensity.

beatledog7

March 19, 2013, 10:21 AM

There's no way we should be tolerating the name of the NYC mayor being mentioned in connection with gun control legislation in Colorado or Wyoming. Free speech is what it is, and Bloomberg can spend his own money as he chooses, but the people in those states need to recognize the source of the influence and be encouraged to ignore it. Pro-2A legislators and candidates should run ads exposing the source of the anti's money, thereby exposing the antis for selling their votes to the highest bidder. Then the people of those states can just say, "Thanks, Mike, for infusing money into our local economy. Now go away."

Eventually New Yorkers will tire of Bloomberg's blatant overreach, and more importantly the utter ridiculousness of his ideas. Once that happens, and he gets voted out or just plain run off, his position will be weaker since he won't have the power of the NYPD to enforce his lunacy. Money talks, to be sure, but with only money and no office to push his agenda, he'll be weakened. Let us all hope he won't manage to buy his way into some higher office like he did a third term as NYC mayor.

His latest ideas are to limit the volume of earbuds and force merchants to keep all tobacco out of public view. How many of these ludicrous new nanny rules will New Yorkers tolerate before they say to Bloomberg, "Shut up and go away!"

Axel Larson

March 19, 2013, 10:30 AM

I skimmed the thread so if someone has already stated this sorry. Now the only way someone can lose a right is from a COURT of LAW having decided. Having a doctor or other person decide is going against due process and the 14th and 20th amendments period. :neener:

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.
I think we have to – if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon.
Yeah take a minute and read that and let her determine who is "Crazy".
I know this is The High Road, but we continue to be polite and they continue to restrict our Rights. I think, no I wish Senator Cruz would have called her out on these lies She cpontinues to spread.
This is Fascism and it will get worse if we and our Elected Representatives don't take off the kid gloves when dealing with these people and their lies.

Pilot

March 19, 2013, 11:29 AM

Having lived in Colorado for several years, I was at once shocked, and then not so shocked by the current gun and mag ban frenzy, and political climate coming from statist control. Knowing Hick from being Mayor of Denver like I do, I have no doubt he will gleefully sign any more restrictive gun legislation when it reaches his desk.

That being said, I am worried about states like Wyoming, and Montana. Their population centers have also received an influx of more statist thinking people from both coasts. Nothing wrong with transplants, but when they try to change the new place to resemble the old place, that's when the trouble begins. They do not have the intelligence to realize what made them move to the new state in the first place.

We are being assaulted at every level of government. Fed, State, and local. We can no longer be complacent, and need to start using the tactics of the statists against them. It is time to take the gloves off.

MachIVshooter

March 19, 2013, 11:51 AM

Wyoming, get on top of this NOW!

THIS!

Organize and fight back. We got ambushed, and were already at a relative disadvantage compared to WY. But don't think that the redness of WY preempts the possibility. Use the forewarning and the lessons learned here in CO, make sure it doesn't happen to you guys!

I have faith that we'll beat this one way or another, but the fact that it happened in the first place is very disheartening.

BBQJOE

March 19, 2013, 12:00 PM

Do not take your rights for granted.
Sadly, that is the one thing we SHOULD be able to do.:(

InkEd

March 19, 2013, 12:14 PM

Bloomberg is a terrible mayor. I think even a lot of liberals think he goes to far on things.

kwguy

March 19, 2013, 12:48 PM

Don't say 'it can't happen here'. Wyoming needs to squash this, just like the rest of the country needs to, when this stuff pops up, wherever it may be. Bloomberg is a fascist control freak. He will spend his money on his "pet projects" just like he said he would.

When you have all the money you want, what else is left? Power. That's his deal. Just watch what he does. It's so obvious, he craves power, and uses his money and influence to get it. He's going after Wyoming because it's actually a pretty easy target. The liberals don't care about the rural areas, just the cities. That's how they won the last election(s) for prez. He CAN corrupt those areas with his money, and that's where the political power is.

We need to fight his $ politics with our own, and keep contributing to those that fight on their terms.